Hey IH,
I’ve been watching the “AI + SQL” space, and one thing keeps bugging me: even the best LLMs hallucinate tables, columns, or logic. You can’t just trust the output – you have to painfully review every nested subquery and window function.
So I built SQLazy differently.
The old way (most AI tools):
You ask in English → AI writes the final SQL directly.
It might look correct, but you never know until it fails in production.
Debugging? Good luck tracing through 10 layers of CTEs.
The SQLazy way:
You describe each step in natural language (e.g., “filter stock=100046”, “sort by date”, “mark if price drops”).
The compiler turns those steps into standard SQL – no LLM involved in the final generation.
You can preview and debug every step, see intermediate tables.
The output is deterministic and fully auditable.
What that means:
✅ Zero SQL hallucinations from the compiler.
✅ You stay in control, AI just helps you write steps faster.
✅ Complex analytics (consecutive streaks, sessionization, conditional grouping) become simple building blocks.
✅ Works across MySQL, PG, Oracle – Snowflake/BigQuery coming.
Example from the repo – “Longest rising streak for a stock”:
Raw SQL: 25+ lines of nested window functions – hard to review.
SQLazy workflow: 4 simple steps (filter → sort → segment → summarize). You verify logic in 30 seconds.
Try it:
Web playground (no signup): https://sqlazy.com
Desktop IDE (bring your own LLM key, unlimited local debug): download from GitHub.
Repo with real examples: https://github.com/SPLWare/SQLazy
Not for everyone – if you just need SELECT * FROM table, you don't need this. But if you’ve ever spent an hour debugging a window function or rewriting SQL for a different database, SQLazy might save your week.
Would love feedback – especially from those who’ve tried (and been burned by) AI SQL tools.
Really like the core bet here — using AI to assemble verifiable steps instead of trusting it to write the final SQL is way smarter than the usual "let AI write your query" tools.
One thing though: the headline sells "no hallucinations" but the demo sells "complex SQL made easy" — those are kinda two different users. The non-SQL crowd will just use ChatGPT; the folks who actually write window functions already trust their own setup. Might be worth picking one and pointing everything at it.
Also "verifiable in seconds" is the magic but you're telling it, not showing it — a quick GIF of that step preview would sell this way harder than the whole post.
What stood out to me wasn't the compiler.
It was the assumption that eliminating hallucinations is the thing users care about most.
That may end up being true.
But if it isn't, a lot of product decisions can start looking validated for the wrong reason.
It's free and you can give it a try.
I probably will.
What makes me hesitate isn't whether it works. It's that I've seen founders build around a benefit they assumed mattered most, then get surprised by what users actually ended up caring about.
That's why I made the comment.
Could be a non-issue here, but I'd be curious what you've seen so far once a few people have used it.
and we are working on skilling AI to write the correct SQLazy workflow, if it works well , then auditting and trusting would be well-solved
Aryan, fair point.
Honestly, you might be right—we've had the same worry internally.
The truth? You might literally be our first user today. So your comment hit home.
Just to give you some context though—we've been in this space for 20+ years. This isn't some random bet we made. It came from real pain we've seen with our own clients, over and over.
But hey, we could still be wrong.
Do we think this is a silver bullet? No idea. But we've got to try.
That's why we shipped it—to get real feedback, fast. If we're off track, we want to know now, not later.
So if you give it a shot—good or bad—please just tell us straight up.
We're listening. And we're ready to pivot.
That makes sense.
The reason I brought it up is that I've seen teams be directionally right about the problem and still end up learning the wrong lesson from early usage.
Hard to do justice to that in a thread.
If you're interested, drop your email and I'll send over the fuller thought.
Welcome to contact us at any time.jingwei8340@gmail.com
Tried sending it over, but the email bounced back on my end.
Could you double-check it and resend it here?
jingwei8340@gmail.com
Just sent it over.